How Bad Are the Umps?

[mvp 78]

But but but these umps are competing at the highest level too! They are the best of the best! Their outpouring of emotions and personal grudges are part of the unique fabric of baseball!!!

 

*gazes lovingly at my autographed Angel Hernandez head shot

[sk7326]

In terms of the strike zone being clearly defined, IMO, it goes back to holding umpires more accountable. If they were held to a certain, higher standard, the error rate would improve. No, it's never going to be as good as a it would be with a computerized zone, but I'm okay with that.

 

It will never be CLOSE - because the ump has to pay attention to a pitch coming in at 90 mph plus with movement - and the hitter. The reason catchers are taught to B.S. the umpires is because umpires have no choice but to rely on them. I think they are probably doing as well as they can right now.

[sk7326]

I vastly prefer college basketball for reasons you state. I too hate too many flags in the NFL but tolerate them. What I can't stand is the ridiculous number of timeouts. I like to channel surf and am pretty sure that at least half the time when I go to an NFL game they are in a commercial.

 

I honestly don't think today's umpires are prone to make the games about themselves--mostly because of the replays, which take the wind out of the sails of both umpires and managers. Gone are the days when a manager's first instinct was to charge out onto the field. Now he waits for his guys in the back room to tell him if he has a gripe and even then all he does is ask for a replay.

 

1. College is much worse, especially with the intentional foul game

 

2. Managers will still charge out on the field - because they don't do it because the call was wrong. They do it to keep a player from getting run.

[Maxbialystock]

1. College is much worse, especially with the intentional foul game

 

2. Managers will still charge out on the field - because they don't do it because the call was wrong. They do it to keep a player from getting run.

 

They do indeed charge out onto the field to protect players, but these days it's to confront home plate umps on calls on balls and strikes. Rare is the player or manager these days who goes ape over a call on the bases or in the field. They are all conditioned to await their own team's prognosis on whether that presumed bad call is challengeable.

[Maxbialystock]

Allow me to restate why I still believe umps should call balls and strikes. Just two reasons. First, over the long haul missed calls balance out and do not prevent good hitters from getting hits nor good pitchers from getting guys out--nor, for that matter, good teams from winning their fair share of games. Second, calling balls and strikes is uniquely--among all sports--at the heart of baseball, a quintessentially human endeavor. To take umpires away from calling balls and strikes is, quite simply, to marginalize them tantamount to emasculating them. They are part of the very fabric of baseball even though, as mvp78 points out, no one goes to a game to root for his favorite ump.

 

My gripe, I should add, is that all this is caused by television, and, to me, baseball is easily the best sport to watch in person. Unfortunately, I overwhelmingly have to watch games on the boob tube. Strangely enough, I like the strike zone superimposed on the screen so I can see where each pitch went. But I am fine, for the most part, with whatever the umpire calls because I think it's essential that that activity be a human endeavor. Indeed, sometimes it is is part of the drama of baseball. Last night Tazawa walked the first batter on 5 pitches only because the umpire missed two strikes that were well inside the strike zone. Trumbo should have never been up to bat with two and and two out, but instead he got that big dinger. I was furious. But to me that's part of the experience of watching baseball, and it did not make me want a computer calling balls and strikes. I like umpires engaged, not standing around waiting for a computer to tell them what's going on.

[mvp 78]

The best sport to watch in person is the NHL. Baseball is the best sport to have on the radio while you are grilling or doing yard work.

[SinceYaz]

Ok? Does that mean I can't express opinion?

 

Pedroia could wave his no trade clause if he wanted to. Maybe he'd prefer living closer to where he grew up?

 

Aren't we all waiting for Pedey to grow up? Just imagine what he could do in a man's body instead of a high schooler's. (Or in my case, junior high)

 

Oh wait, I better take that all back. Pedey was Dad's favorite player before he passed. I think I just felt him roll over in his grave. (Like most of us, he loved how much Pedey put into every play and how much he got out of that little frame.)

[Maxbialystock]

The best sport to watch in person is the NHL. Baseball is the best sport to have on the radio while you are grilling or doing yard work.

 

Don't like hockey that much, but have to say listening to a baseball game can be great fun. It's how I got hooked on the Sox--summers of 1953 and especially 1954 I listened to Curt Gowdy call the games.

[SinceYaz]

So let me ask you and the other advocates for a pure strike zone. If one were rigorously enforced--probably by technology--would you be in favor of it if it meant the Sox would lose more games than they would under the current system? I ask because I have the sneaking suspicion that everyone advocating better ball/strike calls wants that because they believe it will help the Red Sox pitching.

 

Max,

 

I will put my 2 cents in here. I appreciate your opinion, but I would not be one who thinks it would be better or worse overall. It would become a non-issue.

My sons played high school tennis. There were no umpires/line judges. The kid serving called in or out. Simply put, that should be fair. Unfortunately, there were a half dozen or so that they played against that were very selfish and called all their serves in when they clearly weren't. I was "an unpaid adult assistant." I never missed practice or games. Fair is the issue. It is a constant. It would have been nice then. It would be nice now. Then, budget limited the moment. Now, there is no need for that.

I have no issue with the calls being automated. There is a part of me that FEELS it wouldn't be quite the same, but when it comes to the game itself, I'd be all for it. As the saying goes, then we could see where the chips fall.

If we lost more games in a fair setting, sobeit.

 

Under-inflated anyone? Another place that automated would be a sure bet. Who woulda thought you can't trust humans to be a half pound off with hot air? Wink wink....

 

Oh oh, I'm going to have to hurry off.

[Kimmi]

It will never be CLOSE - because the ump has to pay attention to a pitch coming in at 90 mph plus with movement - and the hitter. The reason catchers are taught to B.S. the umpires is because umpires have no choice but to rely on them. I think they are probably doing as well as they can right now.

 

And I have no problem with catchers being able to "trick" an umpire into calling a ball a strike. In fact, I like the idea that framing is such a skill. Most of those pitches are fairly close to the strike zone.

 

No, it's not going to be as close as a robot, but such is the nature of human beings.

 

Umps that are purposely making spite calls or performing below a certain standard should be replaced. If the umps were held more accountable, I think the error rate would improve. No, not to perfection, but to a level good enough where most of the missed calls would be borderline to begin with.

[Kimmi]

Over time, robot umps would become a non-issue, just like every other change to the game, at least to the point where I could accept it.

 

On a similar note, I am really not like the new 2nd base slide rule right now.

[SinceYaz]

Over time, robot umps would become a non-issue, just like every other change to the game, at least to the point where I could accept it.

 

On a similar note, I am really not like the new 2nd base slide rule right now.

 

 

 

So far, no one has taken me out on an illegal slide, so I'm cool.

[Maxbialystock]

I thought I'd return to this thread one more time with this thought, that the notion of having computers call balls and strikes is not getting much traction in any news media I am aware of. So, please, you advocates of purifying the strike zone, set me straight. Show me a link to a story about how umpires calling balls and strikes is bad for baseball and must be fixed. I dare ya. Heck, I double-dare ya.

[Bellhorn04]

I thought I'd return to this thread one more time with this thought, that the notion of having computers call balls and strikes is not getting much traction in any news media I am aware of. So, please, you advocates of purifying the strike zone, set me straight. Show me a link to a story about how umpires calling balls and strikes is bad for baseball and must be fixed. I dare ya. Heck, I double-dare ya.

 

There are plenty of columns advocating automated strike zones. Just type that phrase in Google. Here's just one.

 

http://espn.go.com/mlb/story/_/id/14599589/re-imagining-baseball-robot-umpires-home-plate

[mvp 78]

Rekt

[Kimmi]

If all we care about is 'getting it right', then we may as well not even have managers or third base coaches. I know the technology doesn't exist yet, but let's replace the third base coach with a robot that will always know precisely whether to wave the runner home or not. Let's replace the manager with a computer that will always know exactly what pitch to call, when to remove a pitcher, etc.

 

Heck, let's replace the players with robots while we're at it. To heck with the errors and the mental mistakes that they make. Wouldn't it be more exciting to watch robots play every game to perfection? Might as well just play a simulated season on MLB The Show.

 

I know that's stating the extreme, but the point is, I enjoy the human element that the umpires bring to the game. I am willing to forego perfection in calling balls and strikes to keep that aspect of the game. I like that pitch framing is a skill. I like that sometimes a pitch is so good that the umpire is fooled. I like when a pitcher will continue to throw a pitch an inch off the plate because he knows he's going to get that call, and the batter has to adjust. I like to see a player like Youkilis still fuming in the dugout 3 innings later for being called out on a strike that he disagreed with.

 

Again, it's a matter of preference. One that does not make one illogical, FTR.

[mvp 78]

There are too many variables for a robot third base coach to always be correct in sending the runner.

 

Not sure why you are so against a clear and less obtuse strike zone. To me, automation of any other part of the game is silly and not relevant.

[Hitch]

Are you actually comparing a proper and correct strike zone with automated 3rd Base coaches? Holy Jesus.

 

At its very core a game/sport should be fair and just and everyone playing by the same rules. Skill and human error should always play out within the game but the rules by which everyone are playing should be exact for every one.

[Kimmi]

There are too many variables for a robot third base coach to always be correct in sending the runner.

 

Not sure why you are so against a clear and less obtuse strike zone. To me, automation of any other part of the game is silly and not relevant.

 

Too many variables for humans. Not too many variables for computers.

 

It's my preference. I don't understand why people are so combative against the opinion of not wanting the game automated.

 

That's like telling someone they're wrong for preferring cats over dogs.

[Kimmi]

Are you actually comparing a proper and correct strike zone with automated 3rd Base coaches? Holy Jesus.

 

At its very core a game/sport should be fair and just and everyone playing by the same rules. Skill and human error should always play out within the game but the rules by which everyone are playing should be exact for every one.

 

And I hate to tell you, but until umpires (and score keepers) are done away with completely, there will always be judgment calls. On virtually every play.

[mvp 78]

Too many variables for humans. Not too many variables for computers.

 

It's my preference. I don't understand why people are so combative against the opinion of not wanting the game automated.

 

That's like telling someone they're wrong for preferring cats over dogs.

 

Your opinion is not wrong, it's just not compatible with my world view.

 

#yesallrobotumps

[User Name]

Rekt

 

I don't know why, but this made me laugh so hard

[User Name]

If all we care about is 'getting it right', then we may as well not even have managers or third base coaches. I know the technology doesn't exist yet, but let's replace the third base coach with a robot that will always know precisely whether to wave the runner home or not. Let's replace the manager with a computer that will always know exactly what pitch to call, when to remove a pitcher, etc.

 

Heck, let's replace the players with robots while we're at it. To heck with the errors and the mental mistakes that they make. Wouldn't it be more exciting to watch robots play every game to perfection? Might as well just play a simulated season on MLB The Show.

 

I know that's stating the extreme, but the point is, I enjoy the human element that the umpires bring to the game. I am willing to forego perfection in calling balls and strikes to keep that aspect of the game. I like that pitch framing is a skill. I like that sometimes a pitch is so good that the umpire is fooled. I like when a pitcher will continue to throw a pitch an inch off the plate because he knows he's going to get that call, and the batter has to adjust. I like to see a player like Youkilis still fuming in the dugout 3 innings later for being called out on a strike that he disagreed with.

 

Again, it's a matter of preference. One that does not make one illogical, FTR.

 

Except that you don't have to automate anything. You are engaging in a logicall fallacy that is very unlike you. I have stated time and time again that they have the technology to help umpires perform better without taking away any of their authority. You are focusing on a point that doesn't exist to defend a point that truly is illogical. Why would you to have a guy perform a job sub-optimally just because? That just doesn't make sense.

[mvp 78]

I don't know why, but this made me laugh so hard

 

Hope you will laugh when the goal posts for that argument are moved again...

[User Name]

Hope you will laugh when the goal posts for that argument are moved again...

 

If you say rekt again in such a timely manner, then perhaps......

[Maxbialystock]

I did finally read some of the articles on automated strike zones and found none compelling although I now think it is possible MLB will use them, if only to be able to regulate--and by that I mean expand and especially contract--the strike zone to ensure pitching is never allowed to dominate. You can do the same thing with human umpires, but not as quickly or cleanly.

 

The problem, other than my philosophical dislike of marginalizing umpires, I see is that it is in fact true that every player has a different strike zone which a human umpire routinely adjusts to but a computer might struggle with. Heck, I'm not even sure what the real top and bottom points are. If the knees are the bottom, does the ump go by the top of the knee or the bottom of the knee or some middle point? And where is the top? The armpits?

 

The articles I read, I might add, seem to agree that calling balls and strikes has been getting steadily better even if it is still imperfect.

[mvp 78]

Why would a robot struggle with a strike zone adjustment? I think it would be better than a human a judging zones for different sized players.

[User Name]

I did finally read some of the articles on automated strike zones and found none compelling although I now think it is possible MLB will use them, if only to be able to regulate--and by that I mean expand and especially contract--the strike zone to ensure pitching is never allowed to dominate. You can do the same thing with human umpires, but not as quickly or cleanly.

 

The problem, other than my philosophical dislike of marginalizing umpires, I see is that it is in fact true that every player has a different strike zone which a human umpire routinely adjusts to but a computer might struggle with. Heck, I'm not even sure what the real top and bottom points are. If the knees are the bottom, does the ump go by the top of the knee or the bottom of the knee or some middle point? And where is the top? The armpits?

 

The articles I read, I might add, seem to agree that calling balls and strikes has been getting steadily better even if it is still imperfect.

 

Where? Most of the opinion pieces are advocating for automating balls and strikes because umpires aren't getting better (they're just weeding out the worst ones) and a bunch of umpires have their very own personal strike zones.

 

Also, the technology exists right now to measure balls and strikes with an efficiency of over 99% with an error margin of an inch, regardless of batter height. As for the "where does the strike zone start or end", that's just a silly argument.

[Maxbialystock]

Where? Most of the opinion pieces are advocating for automating balls and strikes because umpires aren't getting better (they're just weeding out the worst ones) and a bunch of umpires have their very own personal strike zones.

 

Also, the technology exists right now to measure balls and strikes with an efficiency of over 99% with an error margin of an inch, regardless of batter height. As for the "where does the strike zone start or end", that's just a silly argument.

 

1. The opinion pieces I've read are simply being provocative. It's a fun topic. A couple or more were on a minor league experiment done a year or two ago when balls and strikes were called by a computer or whatever. But the guy who set that test up and who has been the heaviest advocate of doing this is, guess what, an entrepreneur who wants to sell his system to MLB.

 

2. I don't doubt the 99% to within an inch numbers, but do doubt how well the computer will match the strike zone to each and every player if only because I don't think the strike zone is all that well defined at the top and bottom.

 

3. In the end, however, I will still prefer the umpire making the calls because that's what he is there for. With all the mistakes umpires have made over the years, and some of them have been lulus, they have not kept baseball from being a great sport to watch and to play. Player and manager histrionics notwithstanding, to me the simple fact is that it's a ball or strike or hit or out simply because a human being, duly appointed, says it is and that's an important part of the game. In the most popular and watched and played and refereed sport in the world, football/soccer, there is just one referee on the field to make all those crucial calls. Heck, he even keeps the time and declares by himself when a half or game is over. The line judges help with offside and similar calls, but that one referee is all-powerful, even when he makes a mistake.

 

4. All these concessions to technology--including replays in football basketball, baseball, and, I assume hockey--are because of television. I'm grateful to TV because it does a great job of showing us the game, but I don't think it should take over sports the way it now threatens to. Replays in MLB do serve a useful purpose in that they prevent most confrontations over calls and thereby save time, but they are also a big distraction, especially if there are several in a game. I think challenges and replays in the NFL are less of a distraction because half of a game is already consumed by timeouts. Replays in basketball, NBA or NCAA, on the other hand, seem to me to be interminable and a major distraction.

[User Name]

What part of "the umpires can still make the calls, but we can help with their real-time visibility of the strike zone" is so difficult to understand? The system can improve to help enforce the rules without changing them. Umpires are part of the rules, personal strike zones are not.

 

The rest of your point about tv is, without trying to offend, nonsense. How is tv threatening to take over the sport, for one? Do you mean technology? And how is technology improving the fairness of the on-field product a bad thing?